The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, Walker, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based on the documentation submitted and the testimony taken during the November 9, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board finds that the facility at 1073 Mineral Spring Avenue is seeking to change the occupancy of the facility from day care to health care/limited care.  The Board further finds that the Applicant wishes to attain this goal by utilizing an NFPA 101 study.  The Applicants representative appeared and further advised the Board of the technical reasons for utilizing the NFPA 101 study.  Finally, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection to this course of action.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize an NFPA 101A study in order to determine the appropriate guidelines for bringing this facility into compliance as a health care/limited care facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.  Finally, the Board directs that this file shall remain open in the event the Applicant or the State Fire Marshals Office have further questions or need additional relief in this matter.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	This Decision represents a comprehensive, integrated plan of fire safety for the above-captioned facility under the above-cited use or occupancy.  Accordingly, every variance granted is conditioned upon the Applicants timely and continued compliance with all of the directives of the Board. Every variance granted is further conditioned upon the continued use or occupancy of this facility under the above-cited classification reviewed by the Board.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).
	Failure of the Applicant to initially comply with the full Decision of the Board, within the stated time frame, shall void all variances granted herein.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18.)  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to have vested in the above-captioned facility.  As long as this facility is in continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above-cited variances shall remain with this facility in the absence of any change in use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  

Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Boards Decision shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such change creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.1-6, all variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	The Applicant may appeal the Boards Decision, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in the Sixth division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].